That would be quite a feat, given that Mr. Carnegie was born in the 1800's and died over 70 years ago.
I'm convinced that 99% of the people who criticize or even just talk about that book have never actually read it, and have zero idea what they're talking about. It's just in that Ayn Rand bucket of books that people talk about, because they see other people getting likes and upvotes for it.
Ayn Rand was a pretty terrible person. But you’re right that there are some interesting ideas in her books. Howard Roark in The Fountainhead is exceedingly interesting as a person living genuinely without much regard for societal norms and expectations. There’s some weird stuff in that book, but Howard Roark is very interesting. A trimmed down version of The Fountainhead would be much better received, I think. (It’s over 700 pages and has some odd and unnecessary scenes where some of Ayn Rand’s less-than-great views probably shine through. It would also just benefit from some good editing.)
It's not about helping. It's about the feeling of clout. There are still plenty of people who look at Github profile activity to judge job candiates, etc. What gets measured gets repeated.
I believe that most of the ills of social media would disappear, if we eliminated the "like" and "upvotes" buttons and the view counts. Most open source garbage pull requests may likewise go away if contributions were somehow anonymous.
1. People yearn for identity labels. It's a core part of human existance.
2. "White" and "American" are problematic identity labels. People therefore often reach back toward European ancestry (real or supposed), for identity labels that are less controversial.
3. The average person isn't aware (or concerned) that "Viking" isn't strictly an ethnicity. Because it's nevertheless a commonly used identity label.
Not everything has to be an opportunity to spot Nazis hiding behind every tree, or showcase your pedant chops. People wear shamrock jewelry or put an Italian flag bumper sticker on their car because it's fun and feels good, simple as that. Only a small number of legit white supremacists, and a legion of absolutely insufferable Internet progressives, think about this all that deeply.
1. You can't just steal someone else's identity labels when you've polluted your own so much that you can't stand them any more.
2. It would be so much more useful if Americans who didn't like what their country is doing actually fought for it to stop doing that, rather than trying to co-opt other people's identities.
3. Making up an almost-completely-bullshit identity marker like the modern version of Vikings is even worse, because it's not only stealing someone else's identity, it's then erasing that identity with some made-up bullshit.
Maybe y'all should start thinking about this deeply.
While I personally agree that claiming any European identity label from 400+ years ago is silly, I disagree that there's any winning move other than ignoring the slacktivist noise. The people telling you that your natural identity labels are "polluted" will never be satisfied with any amount of "fighting" (i.e. arguing on social media). Because their own identity is that too wrapped up in that.
Also, in this particular instance, arguing both that "Viking" is an imaginary identity that no one really has today, AND that it's being stolen from someone else and erased, is absurd. Other Nordic commenters here have discussed contexts in which the term "Viking" is used today, and it sounds like the same semi-cheeky spirit that everyone else says it.
You will always find plenty of buyers on HN and Reddit for general anti-US sentiment. But probably fewer takers for the unjust oppression of northern European white dudes.
> Also, in this particular instance, arguing both that "Viking" is an imaginary identity that no one really has today, AND that it's being stolen from someone else and erased, is absurd. Other Nordic commenters here have discussed contexts in which the term "Viking" is used today, and it sounds like the same semi-cheeky spirit that everyone else uses it.
No, I think this is part of the point, if not the entire point.
There were actual Vikings. Not a genetic ethnicity, but a profession that others would recognise. Real people really called themselves Vikings, and probably took some pride in that identity.
Making up some bullshit ethnicity around Vikings erases that. Those real people's history becomes polluted with the made-up bullshit. For example: modern Dark Age and Early Medieval re-enactment groups are having a real problem with people joining who are cosplaying the utterly inaccurate Vikings series. They're not interested in learning about the real Vikings, the real people who did incredible things and who are much more interesting (but less photogenic).
So yes, "Viking" is an imaginary identity that no-one really has today, and yes, it is being stolen from actual real people who existed.
edit: and not all Vikings were Northern European white dudes, something you'd know if you read the article or knew anything about actual Vikings.
edit edit: in fact, everything about that statement is wrong. There were Vikings in Southern Europe. There were Vikings in North America. There were brown Vikings. There were female Vikings.
I was involved in a UU church for a few years. It's a weird organization, and very unstable, with another revolution sweeping in new leadership (and completely new culture) every 5 to 10 years.
When I first started going, it was VERY open to atheists and secular humanists. New leadership sweeps in, and there's a mandate to focus more on "worship" and other religious jargon... and let the atheists know that while they can be fellow travelers on some of the social justice stuff, they're not really in the fold.
Last I heard, that leadership wave had themselves been swept out under controversial circumstances. But by then I was long gone.
I could never really get a straight answer on WHAT we were supposed to be "worshipping", given that UU's don't profess faith in any any particular deity or pantheistic concept, etc. I finally reached the conclusion that we were supposed to just worship the leadership's political beliefs, and not think too much or ask questions. In fairness, maybe that DOES make it a real church?
Reddit doesn't do hard IP bans, but they do a lot of fingerprinting to link alt accounts together and will ban them all. You can get around it but you have to be pretty careful, wiping cookies on all your devices, signing up from a new IP, never logging in to the old accounts again, etc.
Nonsense. It's fine to be boring, and to have boring friends. This expectation that you need to be travel influencer or a deep philosopher in order to have anything to talk about is an artifact of social media.
I'm old enough to remember what socialization was like pre-Internet. And by curated social media standards, it was really boring. It was also great.
I mean, if you've already convinced yourself that you'll have a bad time and no one will like you...that's what they call a self-fulfilling prophesy.
It's fine to feel intimidated or shy, but then find something else that does feel manageable. It's something you can get better with by practicing. And I say that as an introvert who went semi-feral after Covid lol.
That has never really been part of the definition. If you look at that Wikipedia article a couple comments up, I only see two examples (i.e. stoops and parks) that are free, and I think parks are a stretch because conversation is not a primary reason for most people going there.
This sounds like me always complaining about "Past Me"'s tech debt. Or when tech debt is being introduced, my team jokes about it being "Future Me"'s problem. It's good for a chuckle, but obviously there is continuity of identity.
But continuity is not immutability. Your actions are a present thing, and define you in the present. Past actions may have consequences, but you are always free to act differently now. Likewise, your present actions don't carve a future identity in stone, either. "The rent is due everyday", so to speak.
We may be talking about two different things. When you say "Past actions may have consequences, but you are always free to act differently now.", I believe you mean that as in "just because you have ordered chocolate ice cream every time in the past does not mean it's impossible for you to order vanilla the next time", yes?
Whereas what I am talking about is "all of your past experiences, the circumstances of your birth, your genetic predispositions and the weather in Myanmar, have created a world-state in which you choose chocolate today. By definition, you will choose chocolate."
My point is that there is no "you" which makes choices in the present, independent from the circumstances which created it.
This never has anything to do with open source vs. closed source, or anything like that. It always has to do with prioritizing the cohort that's most likely to pay money.
It's been shown over and over again in A/B testing that Apple device users will pay higher prices for the same goods and services than non-Apple users will. They're more likely to pay, period, versus free-ride.
As an Android user, it frustrates me sometimes. But I understand. I'm far more frugal with my online spending than most of my Apple user friends, myself.
I'm convinced that 99% of the people who criticize or even just talk about that book have never actually read it, and have zero idea what they're talking about. It's just in that Ayn Rand bucket of books that people talk about, because they see other people getting likes and upvotes for it.
reply